4 ms·
I came to this article expecting a logical proof of why AI was impossible, but instead found the following tautological argument: hard AI, which I define as int
by sasaf5 6y ago
I came to this article expecting a logical proof of why AI was impossible, but instead found the following tautological argument: hard AI, which I define as intelligence with tacit knowledge, which in turn I define as knowledge that cannot be ran in algorithms, is impossible to be ran in algorithms.
Disappointing.
My counterpoint: is there anything that cannot be ran in algorithms? The way I see it the only thing stopping me from simulating every atom in a brain is computational power.
- ibeckermayer 6y agoThe primary thing stopping you from simulating every atom in a brain is a lack of knowledge about atoms and the brain. AFAIK we can't even simulate hydrogen and oxygen atoms with enough detail to get the emergent properties of water.
- sasaf5 6y agoAFAIK for hydrogen we can, but for oxygen the nucleus is already too big to simulate all the phenomena from first principles. Anyway, the fact we haven't been able to do it is not a proof that it's impossible. The article claims that impossibility.
- friendlybus 6y agoWe have mapped the nervous system of a basic crustacean completely and it hasnt made any of the hard problems easier.
- proc0 6y agoI think the neighboring thread nailed it. Tacit knowledge boils down to Cartesian dualism, and like the article claims there is something special and unreachable by computation. I agree this is not the case, everything points to our brains being information processing organs.
- bmitc 6y ago> is there anything that cannot be ran in algorithms? The way I see it the only thing stopping me from simulating every atom in a brain is computational power. I am not for sure I understand the specifics of what you mean by "is there anything that cannot be ran in algorithms?", but there are plenty of things that are not computable or decidable in computation. These are theoretical constraints. There are also practical constraints that effectively increase the list of these things.
- sasaf5 6y agoSorry, my sentence was poorly formulated, and your counterpoint is attractive. Let me try it again: Is there any portion of reality that cannot have the evolution of its set of magnitudes replicated in a Turing Machine? > there are plenty of things that are not computable I clicked on the article expecting to see something like a mapping between aspects of human intelligence and undecidability or the halting problem.